JUDGMENT

1. With the consent of the parties, hearing of the matter has been done through video conferencing and there is no complaint whatsoever regarding audio and visual quality.

I.A. No. 1633 of 2021

This interlocutory application has been preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 56 days in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal.

2. Heard parties.

3. Having regard to the averments made in the application and submissions made on behalf of the appellants, we are of the view that the appellants were prevented from sufficient cause in filing the appeal within the period of limitation. As such, the delay of 56 days in preferring the appeal is hereby condoned.

4. I.A. No. 1633 of 2021 stands allowed.

L.P.A. No.520 of 2019

5. The instant intra-Court appeal is under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent directed against the order/judgment dated 30.04.2019 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No. 2305 of 2017 whereby and whereunder the order of punishment dated 01.04.2014 for removal of the writ petitioner from service as also the order dated 30.07.2015 passed by the appellate authority on the appeal filed by the petitioner and the order dated 26.10.2015 passed by the revisional authority, have been set aside by remanding the matter before the disciplinary authority to take a decision on the quantum of punishment by passing an appropriate order within stipulated period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

6. The brief facts of the case which need to be enumerated herein, read as under :-

The writ petitioner was appointed as a constable and was posted at 10th Battalion, R.P.S.F., Dhanbad. Since he was suffering from some orthopaedic problem since 2008, as such, he was referred to the Railway Hospital, E.C. Railway at Dhanbad. As per the medical report, the writ petitioner was found suffering from instability of right knee for the last five years and, therefore, recommendation was made by the doctors to take light work from the petitioner, if possible. Thereafter, on 10.06.2009, the writ petitioner was declared unfit for the job of constable in medical category B-1 and was found fit for sedentary job only. The appellant created a special supernumerary post temporarily for the said medical "D" categorisation. The petitioner was absorbed in the special supernumerary post and was allowed to draw the same pay which he was drawing as constable. The writ petitioner, thereafter, was directed to report for re-examination to Jagjeevan Ram Hospital, Mumbai Central where he was found fit for duty as a constable. It is the case of the writ petitioner that he resumed the duty but again fell ill for which he was treated by one Dr. D.P. Bhusan, Assistant Professor, Department of Orthopaedic, P.M.C.H., Dhanbad from 03.10.2012 till January 2016. It is the further case of the writ petitioner that he submitted all the medical documents to his department but ignoring the same the department proceeded against the petitioner on the charge of unauthorized absence and to that effect a charge-sheet was issued and served to the petitioner. The writ petitioner responded to the said allegation but the reply having been found unsatisfactory, he was proceeded against departmentally. A regular departmental enquiry was conducted against him. The writ petitioner participated in the said enquiry and produced some medical documents in support of his contention but the enquiry officer found the charge of unauthorized absence to be proved.

Second show cause notice was issued to the writ petitioner which had duly been responded but the disciplinary authority vide order dated 01.04.2014 finding the reply furnished by way of second show cause unsatisfactory, has imposed the punishment of removal from service.

The writ petitioner being aggrieved by the same, filed a writ petition before this Court being W.P.(S) N